From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:50:40 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1327876814.85926.YahooMailNeo@web121001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201201291750.43042.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] All pre-BIP BIPs are not valid
Precedence: list

First and foremost, I consider this thread an utter waste of time. These 
matters were "finished" over a year ago, and there is no need to dig them up 
again just because there are numbers for BIPs now. I don't intend to continue 
this topic any further than necessary, since my time (and everyone else's) is 
better spent working on *actual forward progress*, not this attempt to rewrite 
history. That being said...

On Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:40:14 PM Amir Taaki wrote:
> Luke Dashjr is telling me that BIP 20 was accepted as Final a year ago
> (before the BIP process existed).

Before the BIP process was formalized. The process itself existed long before.

> I respectfully disagree. I find it nonsensical to have a BIP to have been
> accepted before the BIP process existed. My feeling is that a BIP needs to
> go through the proper formalised motions in public before becoming
> accepted.
> 
> The URI Scheme did not go through these motions. I did not know it was even
> accepted, and at least 2 implementations have objected to the standard as
> is. This is problematic because a standard is meant to be consensus
> building not enforcement from above.

It did. In early 2011, there was a consensus and multiple implementations (by 
name, I know of at least Spesmilo and WalletBuddy). This is by definition the 
Final status. It was not until months later that anyone objected to the 
standard.

> Ergo I am going to say:
> 
> NO BIP EXISTED BEFORE THE BIP PROCESS.

You are contradicting the assignment of BIP 0020 to a preexisting standard 
here.

> NEW BIPS ARE ALWAYS DRAFT STATUS.
> 
> BIPS CHANGE STATUS AS SPECIFIED IN BIP 0001

By trying to demote BIP 0020 from Final to Draft, you are not following the 
specification in BIP 0001.

> Luke claims I do not have the ability to specify those conditions above.

Rather, I am claiming that assigning a number does not give you the authority 
to demote a preexisting standard. No other standards organization has 
attempted to claim preexisting standards don't exist or change their status.

> If there are any objections then please tell me. I did not get to observe
> the process for BIP 20, therefore I am not accepting it. Anybody is
> welcome to submit a competing BIP to Luke's BIP 20 (as has happened with
> BIP 16 and 17).

Anyone is welcome to submit a new BIP aimed at Superceding BIP 20 (and doing 
so might make good sense soon, with various new functionality), but until that 
occurs, BIP 20 remains the Final status it has been for a whole year now.